Brethren,
Romans 1:28 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient...
Please permit me to ask some childish questions. Please help me.
1. Who are referred to by the pronouns "they" and "them"?
2. What does it mean 'to retain God in their knowledge'?
3. What kind of knowledge is this - innate, natural, spiritual?
4. Does "as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge" imply that they had God in their knowledge before but did not want to retain it any longer, i.e. have jettisoned it?
5. Is it necessary to give a reprobate over to a reprobate mind?
6. Is having a reprobate mind the same as being a reprobate?
7. Can a child of God, under certain circumstances, be given over to a reprobate mind?
Pardon my genuine inquiries. Please help me to understand.
sing
=======
On Thu Nov 1, 2007 11:33 pm, Benny wrote
Bro Sing,
Please permit my answers...correct as needed, but you good brethren be gentle. :)
I believe Paul is speaking of mankind in general in Romans 1, and that by "retaining God in their knowledge" it means that man did not want to acknowledge that there is a creator. In other words, God made man and for some period of time, mankind in general, whether righteous or wicked, knew there was a creator God. Take Cain for example, who was "of that wicked one" (1 John 3:12), yet he knew full well there was a creator God (Genesis 4:9). However, as time went on, man erased the fact that there is a creator God from his teachings, thoughts, etc, despite the fact that nature itself testifies of a Creator (Romans 1:20). I guess you would say that is a natural, or historic knowledge of God. Simply put, a general recognition of the existence of a Divine Creator God.
If I am way off base, call me back from the limb I am out on. (or at least throw me a safety rope)
God bless,
Benny
=======
On Fri Nov 2, 2007 1:32 pm sing wrote:
Brother Benny
I have thrown a big and thick mattress under the limb... so the danger is minimal.
Thanks for your thoughts. I went back to read the passage, and my mind was provoked with some questions.
Brethren, please help me with these honest questions...
Romans 1:18-28 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;...
Sorry, more questions - just honest question in order to rightly divide the word of truth.
- Who are these men who hold "the truth" in unrighteousness?
- Do natural men ever hold the truth"? And hold the truth in unrighteousness?
- What is meant by "the truth"? Does the definite article 'the' has any significance?
- What is meant by "holding the truth in unrighteousness"?
- Do God's children hold the truth?
- Do God's children hold the truth in unrighteousness?
This question surely reminds me of the children of God among the Jews in apostolic times, in their hard unbelief of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
- Is the indictment against natural men in general who ought to hold the truth in righteousness but who actually hold the truth in unrighteousness?
- Or is the indictment against God's children who ought to hold the truth in righteousness but who actually hold the truth in unrighteousness?
- Which would make most sense?
Needing to learn,
sing
=======
on Fri Nov 2, 2007 1:20 pm, Jay wrote:
Brother Sing,
I think if you check the meaning of the Greek word translated "hold," you'll discover that it means to hold down or to suppress. These men do not clutch the truth to themselves as a treasure, but they rather do as much as they can to suppress or destroy it. The word can mean to hold something treasured, but it can also mean to suppress or hold down. I believe in this context that is the proper interpretation of the word.
Hope this thought helps some of your questions,
jay
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 1:03 am, sing wrote:
Brother Jay,
Thank you for the light. You are right. The NKJ has 'suppress,' and 'hold down' in the margin. My KJ copy has 'hold back' in the margin. Is there any difference between 'hold down' and 'hold back'?
Whether 'hold down' or 'hold back' (i.e. hold it in an unrighteous manner) would it right to say that such action presupposes the possession or knowledge of "the truth"? How does one suppress, hold down, or hold back the truth if he does not know the truth?
Verse 18-19 constitutes one sentence (that's how my copy of the KJ read). Would it be right to say that "the truth" in verse 18 is elaborated in verse 19 - "the truth" is that which may be known of God. And that which may be known of God, God Himself has shown it to them?
So most probably "the truth" is something more than natural innate knowledge of God that every man possesses by nature (I assume this is true... I may still be wrong.) Is it possible that "the truth" that God Himself has shown it to them is just the natural innate knowledge of God? If it is just innate knowledge, would there be a need at all for God to show it to them? All honest questions to learn the truth.
It seems to me that Rom 1:18-32 deals with those who sin grievously against clear light, and not just natural men in general. The more I read, the more apparent this gets. It seems Apostle Paul is dealing with a specific group of people who is highly privileged... who have been shown the truth, did not want to retain/have it..
They have the truth of God. God has shown it unto them
- BUT they hold the truth in unrighteousness. They knew God (v21). God has shown it to them.
- BUT they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.
- But they worshiped and served the creature MORE than the Creator.
- BUT they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image... They have the truth of God.
- BUT they changed it into a lie.
- BUT did not like to retain God in their knowledge. They know the judgment of God against ungodliness and unrighteousness
- BUT do them regardless.
- BUT delight in other that do the same.
Are these things speaking of natural men in general? I am wondering if the text is not saying too much?
Thanks for guiding a lad,
sing
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 1:58 am
Brother Sing,
My thoughts to your questions.
Do these people possess the truth by the term "hold" or "hold down"? I'd say that Paul's intent is that they are enemies to the truth and their objective is to suppress it, not that they possess it in any personal or inate manner. They likely hate it more than "hold it."
I do believe the context deals with the ability of mankind in general to look at nature and to know certain fundamental truths that "creation" testifies regarding its "Creator." One of our church members was a vice president for Boeing until his recent retirement. A year or so back he attended a conference in which government, industry, and education interests were represented. Most of the presentations were openly pro-evolution and anti-creation, anti- Christianity. A leading speaker in the conference spoke clearly of his anti-Christianity, but he also spoke in detail regarding the order and intelligent design that we see in nature. Our member sat by this man for dinner one night and struck up a conversation with him, thanking him for making such a strong case FOR God and for God's intelligent design of nature. The man was quite startled. Brother Ron Johnson is a member of FGF. He could give you more details of this fascinating interaction, but the point was-is clear. God has left His distinct marks on His creation. It speaks of intelligent origin and design, not of accidental evolution. Wicked natural men are more often inclined to actively seek to suppress this information than to acknowledge it.
Many years ago I read an article in a magazine from a creation research society. The article told about a leading scientist in Great Britain who was a featured speaker at a national gathering of scientists. In the speech he acknowledged that he was not a Christian, but that, as a scientist he could no longer support the idea of evolution as being credible and believable science. He then used this analogy. To advocate that the present universe came into being by evolution is the scientific equvalent to alleging that a tornado can sweep through a junk yard and assemble a Boeing 747 jet aircraft flight ready! Wow!
While nature sufficiently bears such testimony to God's existence and power, "...his eternal power and godhead..." most of the time wicked men consciously suppress or avoid such conclusions. If they acknowledge God in creation, they must deal with Him in terms of morality! I do not believe it is outside natural man's ability to know that God exists. "God is not in all his thoughts" more likely refers to a favorable or spiritual consideration. In Job the wicked shake their fist at God and tell Him, "Depart from us for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways." James tells us that the devils believe in God's existence and tremble.
I believe Paul's major objective in this section of Scripture is to affirm that on Judgment Day, God will pass sentence on wicked men, and that sentence will be altogether just and right. He will produce the evidence of their sin, sin that includes in many cases an active, conscious dedication to suppression of any consideration of Him and His power.
Hope this helps,
Jay
=======
Fri Nov 2, 2007 4:38 pm
Brother Sing,
I believe Jay is correct about the intent of the word "hold" in this passage. Its about suppressing the truth. Those described in the passage "hold" truth in unrighteousness, NOT holding it in righteousness. Hence, their intent is to suppress the truth by withholding and suppressing it from others.
Regarding the word "Truth" in the passage. Consider these various categories of truth. I do believe the Scriptures set forth several categories of truth. Consider the following:
1.) There is truth revealed in Natural Creation to all mankind. This is "natural truth" and is available to all mankind. It's closely akin to "natural science".
2.) There is truth revealed in the Law to Jews only. (Ps. 147: 19, 20)
3.) There is truth revealed in the Gospel to only the regenerated Elect . (Matt. 11:25; 1 Cor. 2: 12- 14)
All the above categories have reference to "Truth". But in each category the truth refers to a different context of it.
Brother Sing, I believe the "truth" Paul is addressing in Romans 1:18 relates to the truth about Natural Creation. (see #1 above) Read again verse 18,19 & 20 in Romans 1. What do you think? I do understand these to be speaking about Natural Creation and the "truth" that is self-evident from it.
Just my American dollar's worth! Not what it once was worth!
Eddie
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 1:03 am
Dear Brother Eddie,
Thanks for the cool refreshing breeze from the desert. I am glad the fire was no where near you.
You said
== Brother Sing, I believe the "truth" Paul is addressing in Romans 1:18 relates to the truth about Natural Creation. (see #1 above) Read again verse 18,19 & 20 in Romans 1. What do you think? I do understand these to be speaking about Natural Creation and the "truth" that is self-evident from it. ==
You may be right. But I have questions in my rusty head. This is what I think.
On the one hand we have the truth about the natural creation that is "clearly seen," yes, "truth that is self-evident" as you say. Now, if this aspect of truth are clearly seen and is self-evident, then I would conclude that this category of truth DOES NOT need God to show it.
However, "the truth" spoken of requires God Himself to show it, "God hath showed it to them." Therefore the truth that needs God Himself to show it is of the truth of a different sphere.
keep blowing the cool breeze,
sing
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 1:24 am
Brother Sing,
I think Romans 1:20 is explaining how it is that God has shown it unto them (in verse 19). He shews it unto them and all mankind by the fact that he continues to uphold His creation before the eyes of mankind by the word of his power (Heb 1:3). Through God's upholding of his creation before mankind's eyes, He is speaking to all mankind or shewing to all mankind that there is a God.
Psalms 19:1-3 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."
All over the earth, God shows or teaches mankind that there is a God by his sustaining and upholding His creation before their eyes. It is not that creation is really shewing itself.
Consider this.
If I hold up a dollar bill before your eyes, it is obvious that I was the one who shewed you the dollar bill. The dollar bill did not really shew itself to you. I was the one that shewed it to you by holding it up before your eyes.
Likewise, it is through God's upholding of creation (Heb 1:3) before our eyes that He shews us His creation whereby mankind is without excuse to acknowledge His existence.
Blessings,
Vincent
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 4:39 pm
Brother Vincent,
Thanks for your thoughts...
Ps 19 is interesting. However Ps 19 is the confession of a child of God. Would it be right to say that what the Psalmist perceives is what every natural man in general perceive? Yes, there are God's people in every speech and language who hear the voices of the heavens and firmament declaring the glory of God. It is making the text to say FAR TOO MUCH that natural man in every speech and language hear the voices of the heavens and firmament declaring the glory of God.
I would consider suitable proof texts for your assertion.
I do believe there is a vast difference between God 'upholding all things by the word of his power' - including the whole human race - and His activity of making himself known to men such that the visible creation actually confirmed to them the eternal power and God-head of God.
NO amount of the visible things of the creation can reveal the invisible things of God to natural man. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Invisible things of God are certainly things of the Spirit of God, spiritual things. This is a reasonable statement, I think.
Visible things of the creation can reveal the invisible things of God to spiritual men only, God's children. This is a reasonable statement, I think.
The invisible things of the creation are CLEARLY SEEN - not seen by physical eyes of the natural men, but seen by the eyes of faith of spiritual men. This is a reasonable statement, I think.
I would be glad to hear further. Please keep talking. Righteous communication edifies. I am in need of being build up in the most holy faith.
sing
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 1:50 am
Brother Sing,
I fully agree with both Brother Eddie's and Brother Jay's explanation of these verses. The context makes it very clear to me.
Concerning Paul's statement in Romans 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness," and a resulting question regarding Romans 1:19, "Just how did God show it unto them?", consider the first phrase in verse 19: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them." God hath showed it unto them intellectually with conscious knowledge by manifesting unto them that which may be known of God. Psalm 19:1-6, along with the context of Romans 1:20, reveal how God manifest it unto them. 1:20 reads: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Paul, in this Romans 1:18-32 context, is not speaking of a revelation of God about "Spiritual things", but about "Natural things"--i.e. about God's natural creation as per Genesis 1:1-31. Psalm 19, verses 1 to 6, from the OT, give another strong clue which correlates with Paul's NT passage. Note the reading in Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Romans 1:18-20 is not a revelation of God given "through the Gospel." 1:18-20 is in contrast to the power of the gospel revelation in Romans 1:16-17. 1:18-20 is a revelation of the wrath of God sent directly from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; and is not that revelation that is conveyed through the Gospel. Romans 1 speaks distinctively of two different kinds of revelation, the one revelation of the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith through the Gospel; the other revelation speaks of the wrath of God which is revealed directly from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness."
As both Brother Joe and Brother Ed have factually given regarding this "holding the truth in unrighteousness", the people of whom Paul is speaking in this particular context "hold back" the truth of God's creation and would "suppress" it so as to deny and hide the authority of God's eternal power and Godhead which is abundantly revealed in and by His CREATION. These persons, of whom Paul speaks in this precise context, are without excuse in their denial of the authority of the Godhead's eternal power to CREATE the universe. In this very context, Paul is denying the errant concept of "verticle evolution," and is giving all the authority to God for all of His CREATIVE WORK IN NATURE. In this, David also concurs with Paul by asserting that: "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world..." This makes the fool without excuse (Rom. 1:20).
Such Scriptures reveal just HOW God hath shewed it unto them. By opposing and rejecting this revelation of God in His works of CREATION, Psalm 53:1 states: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity..." The "fool" suppresses the "truth" of God's works in creation by holding back that truth in unrighteousness. They are without excuse to suppress this "truth."
May God bless,
Bernardo
=======
Fri Nov 2, 2007 10:59 pm
Bro. Sing,
I have no answers, but I do have a few thoughts for you.
I think the real question is "To what degree can a child of God sin?"
If you make a limit on what a child of God cannot do so far as sin, then it would seem logical to me that we would have to put a limit degree on what a child of God can do in the realm of good.
I do not want to put limits on either.
I think that the judgment of the eternal destiny of any man is in the hands of God only, and we only know who are His and who are not by His direct pronouncement about the person.
I do not believe our old human sinful nature is changed in any degree by regeneration. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. That which is born of the spirit it spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (the word 'flesh' meaning our Adam nature).
How much further away from God, right, good, which dishonours God, can a child of God go, than to believe that a totally depraved, dead in trespasses and sins person can and must do something, acceptable to God, before God will make that person His child?
How could some immoral sin, compare to such a spiritual sin; especially the sin of a 'dead in sin person' having to do in order to get eternal divne life from God?
I think the texts, under consideration, reveal the chastening love of God for His disobedient people in allowing them to discover their hog-pen thinking and practice so they will repent and return to right thinking and honour God.
Personally, I believe these people in Romans 1:18-28 are children of God.
Verses 18-21 are one sentence, and verse 22 begins with "Professing themselves...". I do not want to compromise and say there could be some unregenerate under consideration, because the texts say such things as -men-, not mankind, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; (in those who hold the truth in unrighteousness) for God hath shewed it unto them, for the invisible things (spiritual) of him (God) from the creation of the world (not 'by' the creation of the world) ('from' has to do with time and not the physical creation) are clearly seen (it is the invisible things of God that are clearly seen and are being understood) being understood by the thing that are made (and the things that are made are invisible things) (because the things that are understood by them are understood by faith. the reason I say these things are understood by faith is because of what it is, in part, that is understood) even his eternal power and Godhead;(God's eternal power and Godhead are not understood by seeing and understanding the physical science of the natural creation. you might understand there had to be a supreme being who created all things; but not the Godhead of God.) so that they are without excuse: (these people have no excusing, from a 'time world' wrath of God, while they are living on earth, because what God has revealed in them is what they know -revelation from God and of God is spiritual, not physical.)
Among God's children, and in the sight of God, before a physical moral wrong is performed, they have already departed from fellowship with God spiritually, and resorted to their old flesh nature to follow it. The prodigal left his father's house before he got to the hog pen.
I think the Lord inspired Paul to write this in order to reveal the spiritual corruptness of the Jewish people, like He did to John when He called Jerusalem spiritually Sodom and Egypt. These Jewish people who were, in their thinking, more holy than the Gentiles with whom they worshipped, that they needed to know where they stood with God so they would stop their condemning of the Gentiles in the same church at Rome. That is what chapter 2 is about.
Just a few random thoughts of mine.
If any help, okay, praise the Lord, no charge.
If any hinderance, forgive, and charge the error to me personally.
God Bless You Dear Brother.
If you have a mind to help me where you see my errors in thinking, please do.
In love of the Lord and His Holy Word.
Far east
=======
On Nov 3, 2007, at 6:22 AM, Bernardo wrote:
Brother Sing,
Perhaps we should observe that Romans 1:28-32 says way too much for Paul to be speaking of children of God in these verses. Notice carefully the reading:
Romans 1:28-32 "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
For the new creature (creation) in Christ Jesus, these old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Cor. 5:17). A definite change of nature is made in the heart of the child of God in regeneration.
How can we reckon that a child of God can in any way be described by these terms that Paul uses? As an example, how is it that children of God can be "haters of God?" Rather than being haters of God, the children of God love God because God first loved them (1 John 4:19).
Truths seriously to be considered,
Bernardo
=======
Saturday, November 03, 2007 04:10 AM
Dear Brother Bernardo,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I am trying to see from the other direction. If apostle Paul is merely speaking of the natural men in general, isn't he stating the obvious and plain? Why such urgency and gravity? Why point out such obvious and plain matter to a church in Rome? There must be more to such a serious indictment being stated.
I do believe God's children, though new creatures with a NEW nature, are capable of all those things stated in Rom 1:28-32. Many passages testify to this reality. And God's children, holding the truth in unrighteousness, do descend into various hideous sins enumerated. That explains the gravity of the matter raised by apostle Paul.
I am just thinking, it was said of the whole generation that perished in the flood - "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually." Were there God's children among those described above that perished in the flood? . If there were, were they included in the description above? Honest questions.
I am thinking of God's children among the Jews living in the generation of the Apostles who were so opposed to the new covenant. Many suffered horrendous destruction in the hands of the Romans... Kind of remind me of the flood...
scattered thoughts,
sing
=======
Sat Nov 3, 2007 11:54 pm
Brother Sing,
I surely do need you to answer these questions, please:
How can someone who loves God from the heart also hate God from that same heart?
Don't you believe that love and hate are opposites?
How do you rectify this dilemma?
Curious,
Bernardo
=======
Sun Nov 4, 2007 12:55 am
Brother Far-east,
Thanks for your thoughts. There are things you said I don't seem to understand. Let me work through it line by line. My comments indicated by ##.
== I think the real question is "To what degree can a child of God sin?" If you make a limit on what a child of God cannot do so far as sin, then it would seem logical to me that we would have to put a limit degree on what a child of God can do in the realm of good. ==
## Are you indicating that it is a wrong start to say that God's children can't possibly do those things ["make a limit] mentioned in Romans 1:18-32, and therefore must speak of natural man?
== I do not want to put limits on either. ==
## Hmmmm. Why not? Please tell me the reason.
== I think that the judgment of the eternal destiny of any man is in the hands of God only, and we only know who are His and who are not by His direct pronouncement about the person. ==
## What about the declaration, "whoever believes has eternal life'?
== I do not believe our old human sinful nature is changed in any degree by regeneration. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. That which is born of the spirit it spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (the word 'flesh' meaning our Adam nature). ==
## I do see the point. It is not the old nature got fixed in any degree. It is a new nature given at regeneration.
== How much further away from God, right, good, which dishonours God, can a child of God go, than to believe that a totally depraved, dead in trespasses and sins person can and must do something, acceptable to God, before God will make that person His child? ==
## Well, may be two inches further!
It is very strange nevertheless - I have met RBs who give lip service to total depravity... and at the same time insist that one must believe to have eternal life. But of course so many of God's children do not even believe in the total depravity of natural men!
== How could some immoral sin, compare to such a spiritual sin; especially the sin of a 'dead in sin person' having to do in order to get eternal divne life from God? ==
## I have never compared immoral sin with a irrational sin. I am not sure if they can be compared at all. Is being muddled headed a spiritual sin - is believing an error a spiritual sin. Honest questions. Not trying to disagree. Just searching to understand.
== I think the texts, under consideration, reveal the chastening love of God for His disobedient people in allowing them to discover their hog-pen thinking and practice so they will repent and return to right thinking and honour God.
Personally, I believe these people in Romans 1:18-28 are children of God. ==
## I am beginning to think that they are indeed the folks Apostle Paul is dealing with, with urgency and great gravity. I am assessing what credible objections against such understanding...
== Verses 18-21 are one sentence, and verse 22 begins with "Professing themselves...". I do not want to compromise and say there could be some unregenerate under consideration, because the texts say such things as -men-, not mankind, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; (in those who hold the truth in unrighteousness) for God hath shewed it unto them, for the invisible things (spiritual) of him (God) from the creation of the world (not 'by' the creation of the world) ('from' has to do with time and not the physical creation) are clearly seen (it is the invisible things of God that are clearly seen and are being understood) being understood by the thing that are made (and the things that are made are invisible things) (because the things that are understood by them are understood by faith. the reason I say these things are understood by faith is because of what it is, in part, that is understood) even his eternal power and Godhead;(God's eternal power and Godhead are not understood by seeing and understanding the physical science of the natural creation. you might understand there had to be a supreme being who created all things; but not the Godhead of God.) so that they are without excuse: (these people have no excusing, from a 'time world' wrath of God, while they are living on earth, because what God has revealed in them is what they know -revelation from God and of God is spiritual, not physical.) ==
## Thanks for your observations. My copy has v18-19 as one sentence, and v20-21 as another sentence. That is why I said 'the truth' in verse 18 has to do with the knowledge of God that God himself has shown to them in verse 19 of the same sentence. The next sentence speaks of the affirmation and vindication of the spiritual truth shown to them by God through the visible creation. And this knowledge of God - "the INVISIBLE THINGS of him" - that God has shown to them is clearly affirmed and testified by the VISIBLE THINGS of the creation.
If "from..." is understood as "since the creation of the world" it would make plenty of sense.
Would this rendering preserve the same meaning:
"For the invisible things of HIM are clearly seen [by His children, because shown to them by God] SINCE the creation of the world, [the invisible things of Him - eternal power and Godhead] being understood by [through] the things [visible] that are made."
Why do you say that "the things that are made are invisible things"? I think they are visible things which point to and affirm the invisible things, namely eternal power and Godhead of God.
== Among God's children, and in the sight of God, before a physical moral wrong is performed, they have already departed from fellowship with God spiritually, and resorted to their old flesh nature to follow it. The prodigal left his father's house before he got to the hog pen. ==
## I believe Romans 1:18-30 speaks of actual act of ungodliness and unrighteousness spelt out explicitly, not just the sins in thoughts.
== I think the Lord inspired Paul to write this in order to reveal the spiritual corruptness of the Jewish people, like He did to John when He called Jerusalem spiritually Sodom and Egypt. These Jewish people who were, in their thinking, more holy than the Gentiles with whom they worshipped, that they needed to know where they stood with God so they would stop their condemning of the Gentiles in the same church at Rome. That is what chapter 2 is about. ==
## Quite likely. I thought to myself... surely Apostle Paul is dealing with something very urgent and closer at home concerning the church in Rome. It seems the description in Romans 1:18-30 fit many of God's children among the Jews in the period of reformation (AD 30-70). Many of them suffered horrendous death (death spoken of in verse 1:30?) in AD 70.
== Just a few random thoughts of mine. If any help, okay, praise the Lord, no charge. If any hinderance, forgive, and charge the error to me personally. God Bless You Dear Brother. If you have a mind to help me where you see my errors in thinking, please do. In love of the Lord and His Holy Word. Far-east ==
## Your random thoughts are appreciated. Thanks that it is without charge.
As it is, I can't even see the many errors of my own. I am in need of help from veterans.
So don't expect any help from this lad.
sing in the south seas.
=======
Sun Nov 4, 2007 3:27 pm
Brother Bernardo,
No bunker bomb please!
sing
----
Sun Nov 4, 2007 9:08 am
Bro. Sing,
Please find some further random thoughts in ff.
Far-east
sing: Are you indicating that it is a wrong start to say that God's children can't possibly do those things ["make a limit] mentioned in Romans 1:18-32, and therefore must speak of natural man? No Sir. I am saying that a child of God is capable of doing good and bad.
f: I do not want to put limits on either.
s: Hmmmm. Why not? Please tell me the reason.
ff: Because I believe our human Adamic nature is as evil as before regeneraton and that our new nature cannot sin.
f: I think that the judgment of the eternal destiny of any man is in the hands of God only, and we only know who are His and who are not by His direct pronouncement about the person.
s: What about the declaration, "whoever believes has eternal life'?
ff: I am not saying that God cannot say who has eternal life. I am saying that I cannot look on the heart of the individual. I can only make my conclusions from what is made manifest by a person and what is manifest may or may not be the fact.
f: I do not believe our old human sinful nature is changed in any degree by regeneration. It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. That which is born of the spirit it spirit. That which is born of the flesh is flesh (the word 'flesh' meaning our Adam nature).
sing: I do see the point. It is not the old nature got fixed in any degree. It is a new nature given at regeneration.
ff: Amen!
f: How much further away from God, right, good, which dishonours God, can a child of God go, than to believe that a totally depraved, dead in trespasses and sins person can and must do something, acceptable to God, before God will make that person His child?
s: Well, may be two inches further!
ff: I say Yes, especially when they have known the truth and turned from it. God was justified in what He did to Jerusalem in AD 70, because or the Jews rejection of the thruth they had known. He called them Sodom and Egypt spiritually. Rev. 11:8
s: It is very strange nevertheless - I have met RBs who gives lip service to total depravity... and at the same time insist that one must believe to have eternal life. But of course so many of God's children do not even believe in the total depravity of natural men!
ff: I am one who believes that our thanksgiving to God will be based primarily upon our understanding of our own total depravity.
f: How could some immoral sin, compare to such a spiritual sin; especially the sin of a 'dead in sin person' having to do in order to get eternal divne life from God?
s: I have never compared immoral sin with a irrational sin. I am not sure if they can be compared at all. Is being muddled headed a spiritual sin - is believing an error a spiritual sin. Honest questions. Not trying to disagree. Just searching to understand.
ff: My Dear Honest Truth Seeking Brother Sing, I love you, if we never agree.
I really do not know what you would clasify as irrational sin, or being muddled headed.
I think of believing a lie as sin. Is that the same as believing an error?
To me, sin is anything that is not like Jesus Christ, whether in motive, thought, word, or deed.
The new man, the inward man, the new creature, that which is born of the Spirit, is the only part of us that cannot sin. I Jnl. 3:9
f: I think the texts, under consideration, reveal the chastening love of God for His disobedient people in allowing them to discover their hog-pen thinking and practice so they will repent and return to right thinking and honour God. Personally, I believe these people in Romans 1:18-28 are children of God. >>
s: I am beginning to think that they are indeed the folks Apostle Paul is dealing with, with urgency and great gravity. I am assessing what credible objections against such understanding...
== snip ==
s: Why do you say that "the things that are made are invisible things"? I think they are visible things which point to and affirm the invisible things, namely eternal power and Godhead of God.
ff: Moses endured as seeing Him who is invisible. I just think that the invisible things of Him who is invisible are spiritual.
God is Spirit. Isn't the understanding of His eternal power, and 'Godhead of God', a spiritual lesson?
Holding the truth in unrighteousness seems to set the stage for spiritual underestanding of those who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
f: Among God's children, and in the sight of God, before a physical moral wrong is performed, they have already departed from fellowship with God spiritually, and resorted to their old flesh nature to follow it. The prodigal left his father's house before he got to the hog pen.
s: I believe Romans 1:18-30 speaks of actual act of ungodliness and unrighteousness spelt out in explicitly, not just the sins in thoughts.
ff: Amen. Physical manifestation is the end product of conceiving sin.
=======
Mon Nov 5, 2007 10:06 am
Big Brother Bernardo,
When my wise teacher ask me HARD question, I take it that he asked it in order to teach me the truth. Wise teacher asks very hard questions that may overwhelm his student.
Since I do desire to learn the truth, I will risk my neck to consider your 'bunker bomb' question.
I am in perfect agreement with 1 Jn 4:19 : we love God because He first loved us. I think it is a mild error to conclude from this that every child of God loves God from the heart. To say that anyone who loves God does so because God has first loved him IS TRUE. To conclude from this that every child of God loves God from the heart is a hurdle that stumbles a little lad like me.
Your question seems to assume that EVERY child of God loves God from the heart.
Can you please confirm whether this is so.
If every child of God loves God from the heart, then 'haters of God' in Romans 1:30 definitely and exhaustively exclude the children of God.
In another post, I mentioned several things in the passage pointing us to the children of God being under consideration...
I do believe hating God manifests itself in many forms. Is worshipping and serving the creature MORE than the Creator a form of hating God? A good way for a man to express his hatred of his wife is to adore and serve other women more than his own wife. No? Is setting aside the commandments of God hating God? Are those who cannot endure sound doctrine but have itchy ears for the doctrine of demons and fables God haters? Perhaps. I am not sure.
A redeemed man is a weird and peculiar creature... he has his old nature of sin and he has his new nature of life. His old nature is sinewy and hardy... it's a monster if not mortified daily. Yes, I do believe that love and hate are opposites, and these opposites may find comfortable lodging in a child of God. This love-hate affair is all too real. I even heard the Lord's complaints against His people.
I am not attempting to rectify anything. I don't yet see what needs rectifying. Please explain a bit so that I may know the problem, and get the right tools from the garden shed.
sing
=======
Mon Nov 5, 2007 11:00 am
Dear Brother Sing,
Some more serious 'bunker bomb' questions!
If a child of God does not love God from the heart, from where in man or woman does the child of God love God?
In the new birth, God writes His love in the heart of the elect of God. This love of God is part of the righteousness of Christ applied to the heart of the elect at the point of regeneration. This in-wrought and applied love by the grace of God is one element of the new nature given to every elect in regeneration. An integral part of man's nature is definitely changed in regeneration, else there is no quickening of the heart. A man's hatred for God is removed at the point of regeneration and replaced with the love of God and, therefore, the regenerate person possesses a love for God. Such a person "born from above" cannot be a hater of God.
To allege that a child of God does not necessarily love God is part of the 'hollow log' doctrine--which doctrine is the claim that regeneration neither changes one's nature, nor has a lasting effect on an elect. In 1 John 4:19, the apostle gave no hint whatsoever that a regenerated person does not love God. John gave no exceptions (and no buts or oppositions) to this love of God that God hath wrought in the elect when regenerated. He merely stated that "We love Him because He first loved us." No exceptions in this whatsoever.
If a child of God does not necessarily love God as part of his/her nature change, which change actually occurs in regeneration, then please reveal to us what are the "old things that are passed away" as Paul records in 2 Corinthians 5:17? "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
Please inform us "what are the old things that are passed away?"
Please also name what are the "all things that are become new?"
Will be curiously waiting,
Bernardo
=======
Mon Nov 5, 2007 4:18 pm
Dear Teacher Bernard,
== Some more serious 'bunker bomb' questions! ==
## The first 'awed' me. The following are little plastic bullets. Keep spraying them... I mean keep talking... and I will be led to the truth of God.
== If a child of God does not love God from the heart, from where in man or woman does the child of God love God? ==
## Your rhetorical question seems to indicate that you have missed what I said. Have I said that a child of God does not love God from the heart? I have made no such statement. Now I would make one so that there may be no misunderstanding. I do believe a child of God OUGHT to love God from his heart, and not just from his heart also, but also "with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind." That would be better than just loving from his heart, especially if he has a weak heart
I have inquired, and am inquiring again, does EVERY child of God love God, and from the heart? Could you please affirm or deny whether EVERY CHILD of God loves God from the heart? The question is not, "FROM WHERE a child of God loves God."
The question IS, "does EVERY child of God loves God, and from the heart?
If EVERY child of God does loves God and from the heart, then that 'haters of God' in Romans 1:30 definitely and exhaustively exclude EVERY child of God.
Now, please make a plain statement that EVERY child of God, without exception, loves God and does so from the heart, and I would conclude that the 'haters of God' in Romans 1:30 definitely and exhaustively exclude every child of God.
Could you affirm or deny whether EVERY bunker bomb of the USAF will baptize its target in Iran?
== In the new birth, God writes His love in the heart of the elect of God. This love of God is part of the righteousness of Christ applied to the heart of the elect at the point of regeneration. This in-wrought and applied love by the grace of God is one element of the new nature given to every elect in regeneration. An integral part of man's nature is definitely changed in regeneration, else there is no quickening of the heart. A man's hatred for God is removed at the point of regeneration and replaced with the love of God and, therefore, the regenerate person possesses a love for God. Such a person "born from above" cannot be a hater of God. ==
## A spiritual dead person is quickened with a new spiritual nature, not just a part of him, e.g. his heart. Your observation is right, the conclusion is a scooter [non-sequitur] without wheels.
Please tell us what constitute a man's hatred for God? May be that would help me to understand your point better.
== To allege that a child of God does not necessarily love God is part of the 'hollow log' doctrine--which doctrine is the claim that regeneration neither changes one's nature, nor has a lasting effect on an elect. In 1 John 4:19, the apostle gave no hint whatsoever that a regenerated person does not love God. John gave no exceptions (and no buts or oppositions) to this love of God that God hath wrought in the elect when regenerated. He merely stated that "We love Him because He first loved us." No exceptions in this whatsoever. ==
## Hollow logs is mighty useful for wifey's stove. I need plenty of them to economize.
I think regeneration gives a NEW nature, in addition to the old one, and not a CHANGED nature. There is the new man, and there is the old man, in one person. It wasn't a middle-aged man
"We love him because He first loved us" is a universal truth without exception for what it DOES say. One must make sure that he is not making it says what it does not. It does tell me the REASON why God's children love Him. It does not tell me the EXTENT or DEGREE of the children of God love Him. May be I am not seeing what you are drawing out from the wonderful statement. Please know that I cannot draw out what I cannot see. So, help me to see that the statement says that EVERY child of God, without exception, loves God.
== If a child of God does not necessarily love God as part of his/her nature change, which change actually occurs in regeneration, then please reveal to us what are the "old things that are passed away" as Paul records in 2 Corinthians 5:17? "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." ==
## Can you please affirm that EVERY child of GOD does necessarily love God from the heart as a result of the change that actually occurred at regeneration. Please say so, and I will safely conclude that the 'haters of God' in Romans 1 cannot possibly be God's children.
Amen and amen about the passing away of old things, and all things are become new.
I am certain that the OLD MAN is not passed away. How very wonderful is that's true!
However exhaustive the all things that are become new, they can't possibly include the old man become a new man! The body of this death remains.
== Please inform us "what are the old things that are passed away?" Please also name what are the "all things that are become new?" ==
## May be the pathetic old fig-leaves covering? Our old condemned state? Our old state of death? Our old alienation from God? Old covenant ways of worship? Just guessing. I am certain that the OLD MAN is not passed away.
"All things that are become new" DO not include any of the old things - old things didn't become new, old things are passed away, DONE AWAY, abolished. Let me guess - "all things" that pertain unto life and godliness" are become new? But there are God's children, e.g. the Jews of Jesus' generation who hated all things that are become new in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Keep on teaching. I will listen with care, and weigh your instruction carefully.
Thank you most kindly
sing
=======
On Nov 6, 2007 4:09 AM Far-east wrote:
My Dear Brother Sing,
My heart goes out to you and I am so thankful for your sustained interest in God and His Holy Word, you love of truth, your humility, and patience.
I am fully aware that all of these blessing in your life are your by the grace and love of Almighty God through the merits of the finished work of His Son Jesus Christ.
I believe such privileges of groweth in grace and knowledge of the truth are available to each of God's little childrren according to their listening to the still voice of God leading them gently and continually within to will and to do of His good pleasure; but I am thankful to see the manifestation of love in you.
May the God of all grace sustain you and keep you near Himself. Isa. 57:15. To those who are of an humble and contrite spirit, they have the promise of God that He is and will be with them in the high and holy place.
I am of the opinion that anything in our lives that is like Jesus is a blessing of God and that anything in our live contrary to Jesus is sin.
What I believe about Romans 1, and whether you agree with me or not; does not affect how I feel about what I see manifest in you.
The heart of the old man and the heart of the new man are not the same heart. A child of God loves God from his new man. The heart is an expression of the innermost recesses of our being, sometimes used in the Bible as bowels. How could God write His love in a corrupt heart. That would be confusion.
The word 'regeneration' means - the act of generating again. We were generated in the family of Adam by pro-creation and now in the family of God by a new creation.
The word 'quicken' does not mean to remodel or overhaul, or repair. The word quicken means simply 'to give life, to make alive'. We were dead in sin before God and now after we are quickened, that is, we are alive to God by being generated by God our Father as a part of His family.
If there was a change in the heart of our Adam nature, that would only make us hate God less. The warfare of the flesh lusting against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh is not an indication of a change in the integral part of the nature of a human.
I do not question a born-again person loving God in their heart and it will always be because God first loved that person; but that love of God by the new creature will not always be made manifest before men and "manifest sons' is what I John is talking about. A baby that is born of God would have difficulty manifesting sonship.
In II Cor. 5:17, the all things that are become new are of God, verse 18. The new creature is of God, and is the all things that are become new. That new creature is made up of a spirit (Rom. 8:16, Acts 7:59, I Cor. 6:20, Gal. 6:18, I Thess. 5:23, II Tim. 4:22, James 2:26) and a mind (I Cor. 2:16, Rom. 7:25, 12:2, Phil. 2:5, I Pet. 1;13, 3:8) which are both new because they are of God. This work of God being done in one of the objects of His love is what makes the old man, the old nature, no longer in power. The power of our old nature is 'legally' passed away, but not vitally. Romans 6 says we are dead to sin, we were dead in sin before being born of God. Everything, in reference to our old man, our old nature, is legally finished, passed away, condemned, judgment is passed on it. It has no legal, rightful, ruling power anymore.
Bro. Bernardo, I love the man, he is a dear friend of mine, but he and I have had this discussion before and could not come to an agreement because he believes that in regeneration the old nature is changed, and I do not.
I would like to hear his answers to his last two questions as of 11/04/07 10:00PM post.
I have an old nature described in Romans 3, and the reason Romans 1:29 - 31 is so parallel is because it describes the same nature being lived out in children of God.
That which is born of God cannot be partaker in or guilty of these things because his seed remaineth in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Therefore any sin must be attributed to our Adam nature. That which is born of the Spirit is spirit and that which is born of the flesh (Admic sinful nature) is flesh. Light and darkness, in the spiritual realm, have two completely different root sources. There is no merging of the two, nor any agreement. Therefore our old nature will always hate God and our new nature, new creature, that which is born of God, cannot hate God. If the two are made one in the same, then God has joined forces with sin. Now that would be confusion.
These are a few thoughts of mine at no cost to you.
God Bless You.
far-east USA.
=======
Sat Nov 10, 2007 12:40 pm
Brother Sing,
You ask "does EVERY child of God love God, and from the heart? Could you please affirm or deny whether EVERY CHILD of God loves God from the heart?"
Yes, Br. Sing, every child of God loves God from the heart. In the new birth, God implants (imparts) that love in every elected object of His redeeming love, and in intrinsic response to this implanting, EVERY ELECT REGENERATED CHILD is made to innately love God from the heart. You must consider that this aspect of Scriptural truth does not refer at all to the physical heart muscle in a human being, but rather to the principle of one's "SEAT OF AFFECTION."
Jeremiah 17:9 reads "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" This passage does not refer to the human heart muscle. Before the quickening power is vested in regeneration, every heart (the very seat of human emotions/affections) is depraved, desperately wicked. But, as a result of regeneration, this is no longer the case. The born-again (from above) heart (seat of affection/emotion) of an elect of God is "quickened" into divine life, eternal life, spiritual life, enveloped with love of God and love for God, and having had the righteousness of Christ Jesus vitally applied, all as a result of the new birth (regeneration). Thus, the seat of affection (referred to as the heart) of the regenerate person, without exception, is no longer desperately wicked, for it has been made holy and righteous and intrinsically LOVES GOD. Can you locate any Scripture anywhere that states or proves that a regenerated person DOES NOT LOVE God from the newly-born heart?
Many regenerated persons may not show that love externally, but that is not the point here under consideration. The present point is that intrinsic love, given and applied to an object of God's love, becomes spiritually innate with the child of God. This love is not something for which a person works to obtain; rather, a child of God is commanded to work "works of righteousness" in exercising faith in Christ because such an one has already been made to love God by His sovereign and irresistible grace.
Therefore, Romans 1:30 cannot apply to a regenerated person, but only to the unregenerate whose heart is desperately wicked. You said if I would "make a plain statement that EVERY child of God, without exception, loves God and does so from the heart, and I would conclude that the 'haters of God' in Romans 1:30 definitely and exhaustively exclude every child of God." Brother Sing, I have now plainly made that statement, so do you now make this your conclusion?
You made the request "Please tell us what constitute a man's hatred for God? May be that would help me to understand your point better." Depravity is that what constitutes a man's hatred for God. In a depraved person's total seat of affection, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" (Jer. 17:9). The depraved (unregenerate) person is carnally minded and is, therefore, hostile (at enmity with hatred) against God (Rom. 8:6-7). Such a depraved person is dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past he walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others" (Eph. 2:1-3).
Regeneration not only ADDS the Spirit of God and the intrinsic graces of that Spirit to an elect person, but actually gives a CHANGE OF NATURE to one. So God's act of regenerating an object of His love, in theological terms, is referred to as the washing of regeneration, renewing of the Holy Ghost, a new creation, a new birth, born-again (from above), a quickening, a translation, a raising up (resurrection), an effectual calling, and as irresistible grace. These are synonymous theological terms referring to the work of the Holy Spirit in the radical transformation of the soul whereby the elect receives a CHANGE OF NATURE. The Spirit of God, Who is an ADDITION to the elect being regenerated, needs no quickening, or new birth, or new creation, or translation, or resurrection, or effectual calling. The Holy Spirit is eternally and always perfect and needs no quickening or rebirthing. These special terms refer to principles that God applies to the elect person in regeneration, principles which establish and implant a NEW NATURE, even a CHANGE OF NATURE in the elect. So, the point is, that in regeneration there is both an ADDITION and a CHANGE OF NATURE which occurs within the elect.
Hope these thoughts help from a dyed-in-the-wool WT,
Bernardo
=======
Sat Nov 10, 2007 7:24 pm
Brother Bernardo,
That's overwhelming kind of response.
I do appreciate very much your seraphic response.
I just have a feeling that your response proves TOO,OOO much.
May be I am too obtuse to evaluate what have been said.
The mind of a not-yet PB is never that precisely calibrated yet!
Do 'haters of God' in Romans 1:30 necessarily mean hating God from the heart? If it is, then I must conclude that you have indeed proven your point. If it isn't, then your proof DOES NOT exclude God's children as 'haters of God.'
I do agree that "whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for His seed remains in Him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." If he does not sin, and cannot sin, surely he is incapable of hating God in the SAME SENSE. That I agree with you.
I do believe a child of God does hate God in so many ways... e.g. God's children among the Jews in the Lord Jesus' generation manifest their hatred against God in various ways.
I do read of the Lord's complaint against His people:
"Wherefore the Lord said, forasmuch as this people draw near me with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men." Is 29:13.
May be the Lord is complaining against reprobates. I am not sure. But would reprobates draw near to the Lord and honor Him, even though only with their lips? The reprobates' heart is already very far away from the Lord, why is there further need for them to remove it far from the Lord? May be the Lord is complaining against His heartless people
I have a feeling that often many of God's children love their Father from their lips only, and hate God by their actions and thoughts and beliefs, even though as you say, "every child of God loves God from their heart - the born-again (from above) heart (seat of affection/emotion)..."
keep dyeing the cotton wool,
your grateful student,
sing
=======
